Exploring Direct and Indirect Relationships among Teacher Self-efficacy, Motivations for Teaching, Teacher-child Interactions, and Child Outcomes in Early Head Start Classrooms

(1)

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE

EXPLORING DIRECT AND INDIRECT RELATIONSHIPS AMONG TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY, MOTIVATIONS FOR TEACHING, TEACHER-CHILD

INTERACTIONS, AND CHILD OUTCOMES IN EARLY HEAD START CLASSROOMS

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By SUSAN R. PATRICK Norman, Oklahoma 2016

(2)

EXPLORING DIRECT AND INDIRECT RELATIONSHIPS AMONG TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY, MOTIVATIONS FOR TEACHING, TEACHER-CHILD

INTERACTIONS, AND CHILD OUTCOMES IN EARLY HEAD START CLASSROOMS

A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE

DEPARTMENT OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ACADEMIC CURRICULUM

BY

______________________________ Dr. Diane Horm, Chair

______________________________ Dr. Libby Ethridge ______________________________ Dr. Chan Hellman ______________________________ Dr. Vickie Lake ______________________________ Dr. Julie Miller-Cribbs

(3)

(4)

This work is dedicated to the memory of Laura J. Briley, without whom I would not have come to a desire to understand the role of the caregiver in infant/toddler

classrooms. Her dedication to improving the quality of infant and toddler care knew no bounds. I thank her from the bottom of my heart for her willingness to mentor me, for all the unforgettable moments, and for the moments I wish I could forget that made me stronger. She was an adventurer, a pioneer, and a very special lady. Her influence on my life and work will not soon be forgotten.

(5)

iv

Acknowledgements

I could not have accomplished this work without the support of family, friends, and colleagues. Education is a lifelong process that continues to require the dedication not only of myself as a learner, but also those who surrounded me. I would like to

acknowledge a few in particular who have guided my path:

Mom and Dad who gave me roots to remember who I am and where I came from and wings to fly high and reach my goals. You provided the secure base from which I roam and to which I always return.

Mrs. Sparks, my Kindergarten teacher who taught me the true magic of an early childhood classroom and made sure I never wanted to leave!

Shane and Tynan who have supported me through every single step of my journey in higher education and my adult life. You boys are everything to me and I am forever in your debt for the sacrifices you made in order to help me to achieve this goal.

Denise DaRos-Voseles for being the whisper in my ear always pushing me toward higher scholarship and a devotion to infants and toddlers.

(6)

v

Dr. Vickie Lake who taught me how “slicing bologna” and “smoking and drinking” could get me through the PhD program. You provided new perspectives, challenged my thinking, and made it all entertaining!

My dissertation committee, Diane Horm, Chan Hellman, Libby Ethridge, Vickie Lake, and Julie Miller-Cribbs, a heartfelt thanks for all the support and encouragement.

Sherri Castle who held my hand through the data analysis. I couldn’t have done it without you!

To Emisha Young and the Institute project staff, thank you for your quick responses to my endless questions.

To the administration, teachers, children, and families of the cooperating EHS agency, thank you for supporting the advancement of high quality early care and education and the early childhood profession through your participation in research.

And finally, to my committee chair, Diane Horm who challenged and questioned but also let me find my own way.

(7)

vi

List of Tables

Table 1. Types of Data ... 65

Table 2. Data Collection Timeline ... 66

Table 3. CLASS-T Dimensions and AMT Subscales. ... 68

Table 4. Correlation Matrix for CLASS-T Domains and TSES with Subscales ... 70

Table 5. Correlation Matrix for CLASS-T Dimensions and TSES Subscales ... 72

(11)

x

List of Figures

Figure 1. The Heckman Equation. ... 6

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework Graphic. ... 12

Figure 3. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs ... 34

Figure 4. The Continuum of Motivation ... 39

Figure 5. CLASS-Toddler Domains and Dimensions. ... 56

Figure 6. CLASS-Toddler Domains, Dimensions, and Indicators ... 57

Figure 7. Question 1 Model ... 68

Figure 8. Question 2 Model ... 70

Figure 9. Efficacy Group Mean Differences between Lead Teachers and Assistant Teachers ... 73

Figure 10. Question 3: Relationship between Teacher Self-Efficacy and Teacher Motivation ... 74

Figure 11. Question 3 Path Model 1. ... 77

(12)

xi

Abstract

More infants and toddlers are in early care and education settings at this time than ever before in history, making the study of these settings of critical importance. In the first three years of life, patterns for health, relationships, and physical and emotional well-being are established that have life-long consequences. Using the framework of Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), this study explored how teacher characteristics and teacher-child interactions associate with child outcomes. Consistent with the systems theory approach, foundational literature for the study was collected from various disciplines, including early childhood, child development, economics, organizational dynamics, parenting, psychology, school reform, and social work. The teacher characteristics of self-efficacy and motivation were assessed and analyzed to explore direct and indirect relationships that existed between these variables, teacher-child interactions, and child outcomes. Correlational and hierarchical linear modeling analyses were used. Results indicate significant positive correlations between feelings of self-efficacy and internal sources of

motivation. Negative correlations existed between some observed indicators of quality and teacher reported efficacy. Further analyses suggested that teachers with higher levels of responsibility may feel less efficacious than their observed performance. The study contributes to a small but growing body of research about infant/toddler teachers and how their characteristics may impact the children and their classroom experiences in early care and education settings.

Keywords: early care and education, quality, infant/toddler, teacher self-efficacy, motivations for teaching

(13)

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 provides information about the context and need for the current study. It will identify the study’s focus, purpose, rationale, and objectives using current

literature from various fields to support the need for this investigation. A conceptual framework to support and guide the research is outlined in detail. Definition of key terms is also included.

Study Context

In 1960, only about 14% of mothers returned to work after giving birth. In the year 2009, this number had dramatically increased to almost 60% (Lally, 2013). This increase means that more infants and toddlers are cared for outside the home. Out of home care can include family members, friends, and neighbors who are part of a support system the family depends upon to enable the mother to work (Murphey, Cooper, & Forry, 2013). More and more frequently, families need to use child care or other out of home care settings for their infants and toddlers as changing dynamics shrink the support systems that may have been relied upon in the past. The increasing number of children under age three in group care settings has created a need for understanding the characteristics of these settings and of the teachers who care for and educate infants and toddlers.

Infancy marks the most significant period of brain growth and development that will occur throughout the lifetime (Phillips & Shonkoff, 2000). This intense period of structural development in the brain has sparked much interest in the first three years of life including the relationships between early experiences and life-long learning and development (Lally, 2014). Harvard University’s Center for the Developing Child

(14)

2

(2010) reported that early childhood builds the foundation for life-long health, future relationships, and personal wellness, through safe, responsive, supportive environments and nurturing interactions with adults. Teachers have a meaningful role in this

development as they create the environment and participate in the interactions that support the child.

Lally (2014) described the need for a “social womb”(p. 2) or protected

environment in which infants and toddlers can be nurtured by sensitive adults during the critically important first three years of development. Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) proposed that proximal processes or the day-to-day interactions a child has with the other people and the environment drive all development. Phillips and Shonkoff (2000) reported that sensitive teacher-child interactions were associated with benefits in developmental outcomes for young children in group care settings. All indications are that both the environment and the people in the environment are significantly important to life-long development starting in infancy, therefore, both the quality of the child care environment and the child care teacher need to be studied to understand these important early relationships and their associations with child outcomes.

Although research suggests that the quality of the child care setting is associated with outcomes for children (Bandel, Aikens, Vogel, Boller, & Murphy, 2014; Belsky et al., 2007; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (NICHD ECCRN), 2005), levels of good to excellent quality in infant/toddler settings occurred in only about 8% of programs in a large national study. Over 40% of infant and toddler care settings ranked poor in quality in the same study (Helburn, et al. 1995). Even more concerning is that according to current research

(15)

3

(NICHD ECCRN, 2005; Phillips & Lowenstein, 2011), this ratio remains, with still less than 10% of programs rated as good quality and a large percentage rated as poor

quality. Considering the increasing number of infants and toddlers in childcare, and the particular sensitivity and vulnerability of very young children, quality in settings for this group is a serious topic for discussion (Burchinal, 2010).

Associations among levels of classroom quality and child outcomes across domains of development have been extensively reported for preschool settings

(Burchinal, Cryer, Clifford, & Howes, 2002; Early et al., 2007; NICHD ECCRN, 2005; Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997; Pianta et al., 2005). Higher language, social emotional, and cognitive scores are repeatedly associated with higher observed classroom quality and closer child-teacher relationships throughout the literature on preschool settings. High quality in classrooms has shown an even stronger influence with children at risk for school failure (Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997).

Regardless of the fact that these relationships have been observed in longitudinal and cross-sectional studies in preschool settings, very little research has been done to explore these same relationships in infant/toddler settings. Given the significance of the first three years to life-long development, a necessary next step in research is to explore factors contributing to the quality of infant/toddler childcare environments and the influence of teacher-child interactions in those environments on child outcomes.

One factor in determining classroom quality is the teacher (Howes & Smith, 1995). Teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy and motivations for teaching influence their behavior, expectations, and even compliance with licensing standards and

(16)

4

for children. Recent research reveals that the teachers of young children play a

significant role in the quality of a child’s experience in a childcare setting (Jorde-Bloom & Abel, 2015; NICHD ECCRN, 2005), however, teachers have been understudied in measures of quality (Logan & Summison, 2010; Ryan & Goffin, 2008). Teacher-child interactions are significant indicators of classroom quality and have long lasting effects on child outcomes (Hamre & Pianta, 2001).

Daily interactions with teachers are the processes through which the young child learns and develops, therefore, a study of teacher-child interactions and how they are influenced by teacher characteristics, such as self-efficacy and motivations for teaching infants and toddlers, and their associations with child outcomes can contribute to the wider body of knowledge about quality in early care settings. The current study explored the teacher characteristics that contribute to a high quality care setting in which infants and toddlers are optimally supported. Investigating the relationships between the teacher characteristics of self-efficacy and motivation, teacher-child interactions, and child outcomes in infant/toddler settings contributes to a better understanding of the proximal processes between teachers and children in high quality early care and education environments for children age birth to three.

Research Problem

With the number of infants and toddlers in group care steadily increasing, understanding the quality of these settings is no longer a problem for the early

childhood field alone (Lally, 2013). The Heckman Equation (see Figure 1) reveals that an investment in education and resources for disadvantaged families, that includes sustained support for development from birth to three and effective education through

(17)

5

adulthood, produces a more capable and productive workforce of adults contributing to society (Heckman, 2010; Heckman, Pinto, & Savelyev, 2013; Heckmanequation.org). With approximately 47% of our nation’s infants and toddlers living at or near the poverty level (Jiang, Ekono, & Skinner, 2016), investment in early education stands to make a significant contribution to the lives of disadvantaged children and families. In over 35 years of longitudinal research on the impact of early education projects such as The Abecedarian Project (Masse & Barnett, 2002) and The High Scope/Perry Preschool Project (Schweinhart, 1993), Heckman revealed that not only are cognitive abilities and socioemotional skills important determinants of socioeconomic success, but that

building these skills in early childhood had lasting effects on society with higher graduation rates, lower teen pregnancy and arrest rates, higher rates of college attendance and lower instances of physical and mental health problems occurring in those who had participated in the program. The equation, in its simplest form, is that early intervention lowers the cost of later interventions, including welfare,

(18)

6

Figure 1. The Heckman Equation.

Studies, such as the Abecederian and Perry Preschool Projects, document the effects of high quality early education in impoverished settings; however, evidence exists suggesting that high quality early education results in positive outcomes for all children. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD SECCYD) studied over 1300 children across early childhood and into adolescence. This study found that not only did high quality early education result in higher academic performance in preschool

(NICHD, 2002), but that those effects continued through elementary school (NICHD, 2005) and even persisted till age 15 (Vandell, Burchinal, Vandergrift, Belsky,

Steinberg, & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2010). The greater cognitive achievements documented at age 15 were associated “with escalating positive effects at higher levels of quality” (Vandell et al., 2010, p. 737), indicating that, regardless of

(19)

7

socioeconomic status, children who receive high quality early education have the potential for long lasting positive outcomes.

The trend associated with early childhood as a smart investment has resulted in higher quality care for infants and toddlers in diverse settings. Increasing levels of expectancy based on the results of pilot programs like The Abecedarian Project, state mandated Quality Rating Initiative Systems, and federally-funded Early Head Start Programs with standards intensify public expectations and demand more from early learning environments to increase the return on investment. The teacher plays an important role in implementing these policies as demands from administrators, parents, children, and even personal internal sources push the teacher to perform.

Little has been done to seek understanding about why infant/toddler teachers are motivated to behave in certain ways in the classroom and what impact teacher behaviors have on daily interactions and child outcomes. In spite of the lack of research on teacher motivation in infant and toddler settings, a growing body of research supports the notion that sources of motivation have a significant influence on teacher behaviors and in turn child outcomes for older children (Hanfstingl, Andreitz, Müller, & Thomas, 2011;

Pelletier, Seguin-Levesque, & Legault, 2002; Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007). A demand on teachers to provide high quality care in accordance with increasing levels of expectation creates a continuum of motivation that spans from extrinsic

motivation, or coercion, to intrinsic motivation, or autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Although studies in other work settings have linked this continuum of motivation to job performance (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989; Deci et al., 2001) and studies of student autonomous motivation revealed numerous benefits (Reeve, Deci, &

(20)

8

Ryan, 2004), no research has been done to assess how motivations toward teaching affect quality in early childhood settings. Additionally, in infant and toddler settings, very little research has been conducted to date to explore connections among teaching characteristics and behaviors and child outcomes (Castle et al., 2016; Guo, Piasta, Justice, & Kaderavek, 2010; La Paro, Williamson, & Hatfield, 2014).

Several factors can influence the way that caregivers respond to situations in the classroom. Teacher age (Saft & Pianta, 2001), educational level (Castle et al., 2016), and years of experience (Hamre & Pianta, 2001) have all been explored as possible variables influencing quality. Teacher behaviors and the reasons for those behaviors have recently come to light as possible considerations, as the teacher herself becomes the focus of more classroom quality research. This study proposes that teacher self-efficacy and motivations for teaching infants and toddlers are contributors to the pattern of caregiver behaviors and influence teacher-child interactions and therefore, the level of classroom quality as well as child outcomes.

Research Purpose

The purpose of this study is to explore the characteristics of the teacher in classroom quality and child outcomes in infant/toddler group settings. Investigating possible relationships among teacher self-efficacy, motivations for teaching, observed teacher-child interactions, and child outcomes provides new insight into the importance of the teacher in studying the quality of infant/toddler settings. The research adds to the body of knowledge regarding infant and toddler settings, and specifically the teachers who care for this developmentally vulnerable group of children.

(21)

9

1. To contribute to the emerging body of knowledge regarding infant/toddler environments and teachers in this understudied area of infant/toddler group care. 2. To identify direct and indirect relationships among teacher self-efficacy and

motivations, teacher-child interactions, and child outcomes in an infant/toddler setting.

Research Questions

Current research with the Early Head Start population (Bandel et al., 2014; Castle et al., 2016; Love et al., 2002), as well as an established need for further investigation of the characteristics of teachers who work with infants and toddlers (Horm, Hyson, & Winton, 2013; Norris & Horm, 2015; Susman-Stillman, Pleuss, &

Englund, 2013; Thomason & La Paro, 2009) and the need to explore motivations for teaching (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Roth et al., 2007; Simbula, Guglielmi, & Schaufeli, 2011) guided the development of the research questions explored in this study. It was hypothesized that both direct and indirect relationships existed between teacher self-efficacy and motivation and observed teacher-child interactions. Teacher-child interactions were believed to play a mediating role between teacher self-efficacy and motivations and child outcomes. In addition, teacher self-efficacy and motivations were expected to directly correlate to child outcomes with more efficacious and intrinsically motivated teachers having children with higher outcomes on child assessments. The questions of interest explored in this study include:

• Does a relationship exist between motivations for teaching and observed

(22)

10

• Does a relationship exist between teacher self-efficacy and observed

teacher-child interactions?

• What are the direct and indirect relationships among teacher self-efficacy,

teacher motivation, teacher-child interactions, and child outcomes?

Conceptual Framework

Systems theory supports the idea that each component of the system contributes to the functioning of the whole. Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) provides a structure for understanding child care environments that support children and teachers. Bioecological Theory reflects the presence of multiple contributing factors and provides a heuristic framework that includes the people proximal to the child as well as the organizations and policies that create and maintain the child’s direct environment (Yoshikawa & Hsueh, 2001). Using Bronfenbrenner’s work as a conceptual framework provides a perspective on the interrelation of the people in early care and education settings. Understanding not only what these environments look and sound like, but also their effect on infant and toddler development provides valuable information to the current body of work in the field of infant/toddler research.

Numerous and varied elements support the development of infants and toddlers in group care settings (Burchinal, 2010; Burchinal, Howes, & Kontos, 2002; Lally et al., 2004; Zero to Three, 2008). Young children are directly influenced by their families and caregivers through time spent with them during daily interactions (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). In childcare settings, other factors such as the overall design of the program, the program administrator, and the structure of the organization (i.e. private

(23)

11

owner, corporation, or non-profit organization) also significantly influence young children as each plays a part in developing and support the context in which the children and caregivers interact (Burchinal et al., 2002; NICHD, 2002). Public policies regarding group care settings, such as, quality rating systems, teacher training programs, and child outcomes, have an indirect impact on development over time (Lally, 2014).

The Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) Model

Using the lens of Bioecological Theory to gain understanding about group care settings requires reflection on the presence of multiple contributing factors. The Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) Model as explained by Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) provides an outline for examining and understanding the contributing factors to development. Based on the notion that a reciprocal causality exists between factors that drive development, the PPCT Model describes proximal processes that occur consistently over time. Proximal processes simply defined are the day-to-day interactions that children have with people and materials in their environment. In order to advance development, these processes must occur frequently and regularly while increasing in complexity over time (Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield, & Karnik, 2009).

Significant interactions in infant and toddler settings can include routines for caregiving such as feeding, diapering, and sleep rituals as well as ongoing dialogue between caregivers and young children about people, events, and moments that are significant in their world. Other proximal processes that can influence development occur between caregivers in the program, parents and caregivers, and program

(24)

12

child, they can affect development because their outcomes trickle down into the child’s direct environment (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

In the context of this study, the child, teacher, and program share a reciprocal relationship with each part affecting the others. This relationship is depicted in Figure 2. The graphic, which was adapted from McMullen and Lash (2012), shows that this reciprocity is part of an increasingly complex ongoing relationship between

stakeholders that develops over time and is influenced by societal and cultural changes across time and history (i.e. public policies that influence children and teachers affect the relationship between programs and teachers).

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework Graphic.

Child

!

&Teacher&

Program

!

&Policies

!

R! E! C!!! I! P! R! O! C! I! T! Y!! ! Over time

(25)

13

The PPCT or Process-Person-Context-Time Model represents the four properties of development outlined by Bioecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). In this model, the more proximal, or closer to the child the influences are, the more significant and long lasting an impact they have on development. For example, Spilt, Hughes, Wu, and Kwok (2012) discovered that daily teacher-child interactions have a more significant, and longer lasting, effect on child outcomes on social emotional, cognitive, and language measures than more distal properties, such as teacher education levels. In the following sections, each property of the PPCT Model will be described and explained in the context of the current proposed research.

PPCT – Process. According to Bioecological Systems Theory, proximal processes are the engines that drive development, and therefore must be supported and encouraged throughout the child’s lifetime (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Day-to-day interactions that occur between children and their caregivers can support optimal development. Simple interactions such as having a routine for bedtime, singing songs with rhymes, and having a conversation are all proximal processes that support development in various ways. In order to have an impact on development, these interactions must take place consistently and with increasing complexity over time. High quality childcare settings provide opportunities for children and their primary caregiver to achieve a consistent routine over time that can support these proximal processes.

One routine often used in the child care setting is the collection of information documenting children’s growth and development, referred to in this study as child outcomes. The process of using child outcome data to inform teaching decisions is a

(26)

14

growing area of research that can be supported through the use of the PPCT model (Guss et al., 2013a; Guss, Norris, Horm, Monroe, & Wolfe, 2013b). Child outcome data is a measurable index of development that can be compared with teaching behaviors to identify contexts of optimal support for children’s development. Understanding and appropriately using child outcome data to guide curriculum results in an informed practice with teachers who have more meaningful and intentional interactions with the children in their care. Collecting and using data also supports teacher and caregiver professional development, program development, public policy, and practice improvement through the reciprocal causality represented in the framework graphic (See Figure 2).

PPCT –Persons. People who influence the life of a child exist in several different areas. Parents, siblings, and other family members form the cultural group of the child. Once the child enters the group care setting, caregivers, peers, and program staff create yet another culture of which the child becomes a part. Characteristics of each individual person who exists within the child’s environment can influence not only the child, but also the other people in the environment. Each person has the potential to change the environment either passively, simply by being in the environment, or more actively through the influence of the force characteristics (Tudge et al., 2009). When considering the person factor, understanding the changing nature of these characteristics provides another possible area of research.

Teacher-child interactions and the characteristics of teachers, including teacher self-efficacy and motivations for teaching, may support or thwart the development of the child. For example, a teacher who faces external pressures to perform teaching tasks

(27)

15

in a certain way may have less patience for the child and fail to follow an established routine that the child has come to expect. When this occurs in isolation, the child can recoup from the atypical occurrence, experiencing a sense of disequilibrium only for a moment (Tronick & Cohn, 1989). This type of behavior, when repeated over time can have a significant influence on the child’s overall development and on how he or she views the caregiver. Including the analysis of relationships between the influence of teacher behaviors on teacher-child interactions and child outcomes in a study of classroom quality is in congruence with Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems theory and contributes to the greater body of knowledge regarding the role of proximal processes in the context of child care environments.

PPCT – Context.The environments in which infants and toddlers learn and develop are varied and complex. From individual family settings, in-home outreach programs, and small family child care homes to Early Head Start and large child care settings, the opportunities provided to children are as different as the people who provide them. Understanding how to provide individualized responsive and reciprocal relationship-based care in a large group setting is a challenge that needs to be addressed due to the steadily increasing numbers of infants and toddlers who need full time care outside the home (Kovach & DaRos, 1998; Murphey et al., 2013).

Even within the group care setting, a number of variables can influence the quality of a child’s opportunity for growth. Group size, teacher-child ratios, philosophy of the program, education level of staff, funding, and many other factors can impact the types of proximal processes that are valued and supported by the program (Burchinal, 2010; Burchinal et al., 2002; Thomason & La Paro, 2013; Susman-Stillman et al.,

(28)

16

2013). The contexts in which the child lives are ever changing and must be evaluated on a number of levels in order to truly understand the processes that support the child’s development.

A number of tools currently exist that measure the quality of the experiences that a child receives in a group care setting (Burchinal, 2010). Some tools measure teacher qualities (Arnett, 1989), while others look primarily at the physical environment (Harms, Cryer, & Clifford, 2003). Still other assessment tools seek to measure a

combination of context, including environmental and social factors in order to seek an overall picture of the quality of the setting, and its influence on developmental

outcomes (La Paro, Hamre, & Pianta, 2012). Research suggests that positive and supportive teacher-child interactions occurring on a regular basis over time in programs that maintain high safety and environment standards of quality provide the best

combination for children’s success on child outcome measures (Ayoub et al., 2009; Early et al., 2007; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Love et al., 2002; Spilt et al., 2012).

One widely-used assessment tool designed to measure classroom quality for children ages 15-36 months, is the CLASS-Toddler (La Paro et al., 2012), This tool has the ability to measure the context of the classroom as well as the interactions between teachers and children. Teacher-child interactions that foster emotional and behavioral support and engaged support for learning are considered as part of the assessment. It is through these teacher-child interactions, or proximal processes, that teaching

measurable behaviors have the potential for the greatest influence on child outcomes. The CLASS-Toddler is one assessment tool that fits the PPCT model due to its focus on interactions as well as the structural indicators of quality environments.

(29)

17

PPCT – Time.Understanding the context and people that surround a child cannot be accomplished without conducting some research into the social, cultural, political, and historical influences that help determine how decisions are made. Across time, shifts in socially accepted norms can influence the child’s development both directly and indirectly. For example, in years past, most children were cared for in the home by their mother. Today, most children under age 5 are cared for by someone other than a parent while the mother and/or father work. Many of these children are in full time care settings outside the home (Murphey et al., 2013). This sociocultural trend toward group care settings has had a significant influence on children’s development over time. The norms and values of the culture surrounding the program the child attends can affect attitudes of the people who have direct and indirect influence on the child impacting the quality of the child’s educational experience and in turn, life-long development. Research has repeatedly shown that the quality of the program where a child receives care is a determining factor in the child’s future success (Campbell et al., 2012).

Assumptions of the conceptual framework model. It is assumed that within contexts that include and influence children, high quality interactions will be guided by standards and recommendations of the field (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Copple, Bredekamp, & Gonzalez-Mena, 2011; Lally et al., 2004; Zero to Three, 2008). Various guides to best practices exist, however, all agree on some specific standards of health, safety, and educational engagement in environments and interactions that support optimal development for all children ages birth-8. These standards and guidelines can

(30)

18

be used to help determine the appropriateness of materials, activities, and interactions between teachers and children.

The sociocultural setting in which the program exists influences the philosophy of the program, the administration, the program staff and caregivers, and the children and families who attend the program. The assumptions for high quality early learning programs are that caregivers of children in group care settings receive some level of training and professional development in order to support them in their role as educators and that high quality programs are supported financially and philosophically by all levels of their management structure.

One such high quality program is the Early Head Start (EHS) program. EHS classrooms adhere to Program Standards, which are considered to be among the highest levels of standards currently existing in the broader early care and education field (Office of Head Start, 2014). Best practices regarding structural indicators such as class size, ratios, and continuity of care are upheld, as are teacher training and education in an effort to maintain high quality teacher-child interactions that support optimal child outcomes over time. EHS serves a specific population of children designated to be at risk for developmental delays, most of who are living in poverty.

The children in these settings have a risk for social and academic delays that can be reduced by participation in quality early education (Administration for Children and Families, 2006; Bandel et al., 2014; Heckman, 2010; Office of Head Start, 2014). While not typical of infant/toddler settings, the EHS program model provides a consistent foundation for the assumptions of this conceptual framework. Using Early Head Start classrooms as a research base also fits into the model of systems theory, as EHS

(31)

19

programs focus on the child and family in the context of the school environment (Office of Head Start, 2014). Comprehensive services provided by EHS programs include, not only the child’s education, but also wellness, developmental and dental screenings, and a focus on social-emotional health.

The trend toward group care environments as the primary source of out of home care for infants and toddlers is likely to continue, making understanding these dynamics of increasing importance. The child care teacher has become a central component of both quality environments and child outcomes. Understanding the dynamics of the teachers’ environment and the characteristics that promote the effective support of development provides a context for supporting young children’s growth and

development in group care settings. This focus of research is essential to understand how the socioeconomic dynamics of our society and our children’s educational environments are evolving. Only through an understanding of how these changes are progressing and their influence on development of young children can we hope to understand and implement effective educational strategies for change.

Significance of the Study

Increasing numbers of infants and toddlers in group care combined with an understudied population of teachers and classrooms that serve very young children has created the need for research specific to this area. The first three years have been identified as critical for life success, making understanding the contexts where infants and toddlers spend time an essential component in development. Teachers in these settings are understudied in their contributions to the quality of these environments;

(32)

20

therefore, additional research is needed to better understand the relationships among teacher self-efficacy and motivations, teacher-child interactions, and child outcomes.

Definition of Terms

The list provided below offers definitions of terms used in this proposed study. Establishing a common language for the early childhood field is an ongoing process, therefore, some terms may be used differently in other contexts.

Agency: The researcher in this study worked in conjunction with a research institute at a large state university to collect data from Early Head Start classrooms in one large Head Start program. Throughout chapters 3-5, the agency refers to the cooperating Head Start program where the data was collected.

Caregiver: A caregiver is a person who cares for and educates children under age three in a child care setting. The term will be used interchangeably with teacher in the context of this paper. The pronoun she will be used to refer to the caregiver as the child care work force is predominately female.

Child outcomes: Measurable indicators of the development of an individual child. For the purpose of this study, the phrase child outcomes refers to the assessment of development in cognitive, social, and emotional domains.

Early care and education: Environments where children under age three are cared for by someone other than their parent. These environments provide care for physical and emotional needs as well as education through interactions with adults, peers, and materials that support growth and development in all developmental domains.

(33)

21

Early Head Start (EHS): A federally funded early care and education initiative that provides high quality child care settings for children under age three who are living in poverty or are considered at risk for developmental delays.

Institute: The researcher in this study worked in collaboration with a research institute that is part of a large state university. Throughout chapters 3-5, the Institute refers to the research group who collected and housed the data.

Motivations for teaching: The reason a teacher behaves in certain ways in the classroom. The motivations for teaching exist on a continuum, ranging from extrinsic or coerced control to intrinsic or autonomous motivation. In the context of this paper, motivations for teaching will be measured using the Autonomous Motivations for Teaching Scale (Roth et al., 2007).

Proximal processes: Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998) describe proximal processes as activity that takes place on a regular basis, becoming increasingly complex, is reciprocal, and involves interaction with people, objects, and environment. For the purpose of this paper, proximal processes refer to the reciprocal, ever changing, developmentally supportive interactions between caregivers and children.

Quality: A measure of structural and process indicators in a child care setting that contribute to supporting children, teachers and administrators, and families in the setting.Structural indicators of qualityrefer to physical aspects of the environment such as teacher-child ratios, amount and type of materials, and health and safety considerations. Process indicators of quality are related to how the care and curricula are delivered and consider teacher sensitivity, teacher-child interactions, emotional support for families, and other less tangible areas of the environment.

(34)

22

Teacher-child interactions: The day-to-day exchanges, or proximal processes, that occur between children and their caregivers. These can be physical, verbal, social, and emotional.

Teacher self-efficacy: A “teacher’s belief in his or her own capability to

organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplishing a specific teaching task in a particular context” (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998, p. 233). For the purpose of this study, teacher self-efficacy will be measured by the Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale – short version.

Teacher: For the purpose of this paper, a teacher is a person who cares for and educates children in the child care setting. The term will be used interchangeably with caregiver in reference to a teacher who works with children age Birth-3 in a child care setting. The pronoun she will be used to refer to the teacher as the childcare work force is predominately female, and all teaching staff in this sample were female.

(35)

23

Chapter 2 Review of Literature

Chapter 2 will present a review of the literature supporting the types and

conditions of infant and toddler care currently available in the United States. Quality of infant/toddler environments will be defined and explored, with a focus on the

contributing factors and assessment of quality. The teacher will be presented as a significant contributing factor to quality early experiences for children. Theories of motivation will be explored as possible influences on teaching behaviors, which could support or thwart efforts toward improved quality of experiences. Finally, literature surrounding the direct and indirect effects of teaching and quality on children will be presented.

Infant Toddler Programs

About one half of all infants and toddlers in the U.S. are cared for outside the home as mothers return to work a short time after giving birth. In 2009, 55% of mothers of infants were working compared to 14% in 1960. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD) (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005) reported a trend of early, extensive, and uninterrupted reliance on child care from about 3 months of age until Kindergarten entry (NICHD ECCRN, 1996). Lally (2013) attributes this trend to the changing national, neighborhood, and family climate in American society as families depend more on institutions due to the loss of extended family and other non-relative child rearing supports. This change in family structure has created several settings where infants and toddlers are cared for while the family is working; informal

(36)

24

in-home care, formal in-home care, center-based care and Early Head Start intervention programs for a few children (NSECE, 2014).

About one fourth of infants and toddlers using formal care arrangements are cared for in center-based programs, including both for profit and non-profit programs (Murphey et al., 2013). Childcare centers vary greatly in size, environment, curriculum, and staff qualifications, each of which are contributing factors to overall quality.

Moreover, the high cost and limited availability of this type of care prohibits many families from seeking child care centers as the primary source of care for their infants and toddlers resulting in an increased number of children entering this type of setting at age two or three (Hyson & Tomlinson, 2014). Childcare centers are typically regulated by state agencies or some other organizations that provide standards of quality. Not all centers provide services for toddlers, and even less provide infant care.

Like Head Start for preschool-aged children, Early Head Start (EHS) provides comprehensive services for infants and toddlers and their families at no cost to the family. EHS programs across the United States served about 150,000 children in 2013 through center based care, family home childcare, and home based parents as teachers programs (Administration for Children and Families, 2015). Comprehensive services provided by EHS programs include not only the child’s education, but also wellness, developmental and dental screenings, and a focus on social-emotional health. The EHS structure provides family support through parenting classes and social services,

including help with family goal setting. EHS programs are inclusive settings for

(37)

25

Head Start, 2013). All EHS classrooms are regulated by Head Start Performance Standards.

Quality in Infant/Toddler Programs

Quality is a frequently explored and much discussed topic in the field of early childhood. Although a number of possible definitions exist, Phillips and Lowenstein (2010) conceptualize quality in ECE settings as having three parts, process, structural, and policy. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory aligns with this

conceptualization of quality, as interactions (process quality), environment (structural elements), and contexts (social, historical, and cultural) are part of the concentric circles used to denote the impact of various levels of the systems within the theory.

Research has long supported the idea that quality matters in preschool programs for children (Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, 2005; Johns, 2005; McWayne, Fantuzzo, & McDermott, 2004; Reynolds, Ou, & Topitzeses, 2004; Reynolds & Temple, 2005). However, less work has been done in determining the impact of quality settings on children under age three (McMullen & Dixon, 2009; Reynolds & Temple, 2005). Although the body of research is smaller, the results are compelling. Gerber (1979) identifies infancy as a vulnerable stage which requires the quality of care be not just good, but excellent.

In a comprehensive longitudinal study, NICHD followed over 1,000 children and their families from birth to grade 9, identifying both short and long term effects of early care and education settings (NICHD ECCRN, 2005). This research revealed that interactions with adults regardless of the setting played a critical role in development, with children who had sensitive responsive adult caregivers consistently demonstrating

(38)

26

more advanced levels in measures of development across domains. Additionally, the Early Head Start Impact Study (Administration for Children and Families, 2006) followed children who had participated in EHS birth to three programs and found that earlier enrollment in high quality care settings had a greater impact on children’s outcomes in preschool. The combination of timing (provided in the first three years of life) and extended exposure to quality programs with sensitive, responsive caregivers had positive effects on child outcomes across domains of development (Yazejian et al., 2015). These studies of dosage, or amount of exposure to high quality care, indicate that links exist between the behaviors of the teacher, the age of the child upon entry to the program, and the quality of the environment.

Over time, the importance of environments in supporting growth and

development in young children has been explored through the research in child care and early learning settings. With nearly six million infants and toddlers in the U.S. in some sort of formal care setting (Lally, 2013; Murphey et al., 2013) it is crucial to have valid and reliable tools with which to measure the quality of the environments where infants and toddlers are cared for daily. Quality is measurable and has been identified in numerous studies to be connected to child outcomes (Bandel et al., 2014; Burchinal et al., 2002; Pianta et al., 2005).

Quality in child care settings is typically measured by investigating three types of main indicators; structure, process, and global quality. Structural indicators such as teacher-child ratios, group size, and teacher education are usually regulated by state agencies (Burchinal, 2010; McMullen & Dixon, 2009). Process indicators are related to interactions and curriculum implementation and include such measures as teacher

(39)

27

sensitivity, responsiveness, and classroom management (Burchinal, 2010). The combination of structural and process supports create the environments and

relationships necessary to produce global quality in early childhood settings (Hestenes, Cassidy, Hegde, & Lower, 2007). The caregiving staff, who are a direct result of the context in which they work, can significantly influence the global quality of the program. Measuring not only the spaces where children play and learn, but also the professional structure in which their caregivers are supported should be considered when assessing high quality environments for children.

Assessing Quality

The assessment of quality in infant and toddler environments has received attention in recent years as research reveals the first three years as a critical point in development particularly sensitive to the influences of day to day interactions in the child’s environment (Lally, 2013; NICHD, 1996; Norris & Horm, 2015; Phillips & Shonkoff, 2000). With this increased attention comes increased demands on programs to meet the accepted standards for care and education of the very young child. The ability to organize and quantify the care of infants and toddlers could potentially cultivate a higher level of professionalism for the field of early childhood education.

Identifying the elements of quality is a first step to understanding the impact of group care settings on infants and toddlers. Certain elements are frequently identified in the literature as being indicators of high quality programs and these elements form the foundation for assessments used to measure quality (Lally et al., 2004; Zero to Three, 2008). The first priority in determining quality is usually health and safety followed closely by developmentally appropriate practice (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).

(40)

28

Additional elements frequently considered are related to curriculum, teaching staff, and partnerships with families and the community. These elements are also widely-used as indicators of quality throughout the literature regarding developmentally appropriate practice (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Copple, Bredekamp, & Gonzalez-Mena, 2011), ratings and accreditation for quality programs (National Association for the Education of Young Children, n.d.; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996), and current measures used to assess quality (Harms et al., 2003; La Paro et al., 2012).

One commonly used measure for assessing quality in infant/toddler settings is the Classroom Assessment Scoring System –Toddler Version (CLASS-Toddler) (La Paro et al., 2012). In Early Head Start (EHS) settings, the relatively new CLASS-Toddler gained in popularity after a large national study found consistency in the tool across classrooms in this group (Bandel et al., 2014). The Baby FACES study provided information on the intensity, quality, and characteristics of Early Head Start

environments and used a number of measures, including the CLASS-Toddler, which was under development at the time of the study. Similar to the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre 2008) measurement for preschool settings, the CLASS-toddler assessment tool is unique from other measures of quality because it focuses on the interactional processes of the classroom. Previous tools used to measure infant/toddler environments have received criticism for measuring the only physical environment, materials, or curriculum and not interactions between teachers and children.

The goal of using the CLASS or CLASS-Toddler is to increase the quality of care by improving interactions between teachers and children. While CLASS-Toddler

(41)

29

does consider environment and materials, it is much more focused on how teachers use the materials and environment to support learning and development through interactions with children. Teachstone Training LLC (2014) reports this as a shift from the what of quality to the hows of quality.

The Role of the Teacher in Infant/Toddler Programs

In infant and toddler settings, the role of the teacher or caregiver is that of facilitator of play and learning, responsive provider of physical care, initiator of rich language experiences and secure base for physical and emotional safety. The first three years is a time of discovery in which a relationship-based care environment provides the opportunity for shared experiences that enhance learning. To optimize the shared

experience, relationship-based caregiving provides a foundation of security from which the child can explore (Bowlby, 1998). In recent studies, this has been measured as a level of sensitivity exhibited by the caregiver during interactions (Arnett, 1989; Burchinal, Cryer, Clifford, & Howes, 2002; Dix, 2000; Dix, Gershoff, Meunier, & Miller, 2004; Howes, 1999; LaParo et al., 2012; NICHD ECCRN, 2000; Weinfield, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 1999).

Caregiving is based on mutual trust and respect for each child as a competent individual (Elam, 2005; Gerber, 1979; Hammond, 2009; Lally, 2009; Pikler, 1993) The caregiver in a high quality program focuses on being responsive to the child by noticing and appropriately responding to the child’s cues and signals in order to guide

interactions (Gonzalez-Mena & Eyer, 2012; Kovach & Patrick, 2012; Lally, 2009; Tardos, 2011). Caregiving activities such as feeding, diapering, and sleep should be grounded in routines in infant and toddler settings (Elam, 2005; Kovach & Patrick,

(42)

30

2012; Lally et al., 2004). Predictable routines allow the child to anticipate what will come. The anticipation leads to participation as the child’s need for independence grows, followed by cooperation as the child comes to understand what is expected (Kovach & DaRos-Voseles, 1998; 2008). These planned and meaningful interactions provide not only the structure for the day, but also the foundation for a sense of well-being and secure future relationships which anchors all other development (Bowlby, 1972; 1998; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Lally, 2014; Phillips & Shonkoff, 2000).

Elam (2005) writes that it is not enough that caregivers love children or understand development, they must share curiosity and enthusiasm for life with the children. In order to do this, caregivers need to be physically and emotionally healthy, committed to professional growth, and demonstrate a commitment to quality (Howes & Smith, 1995; Pianta et al., 2005). Programs can support caregiver growth and well-being by providing a work environment that is physically and emotionally safe, values caregivers as individuals, and provides time for caregivers to grow and develop (Zhai, Raver, & Li-Grining, 2011; Sparks & Cooper, 1999; Susman-Stilman et al., 2013). Thus, developmentally appropriate practice for infants and toddlers does not end with the children but also must extend to the adults in the program (Lower & Cassidy, 2007).

Quality Depends on the Teacher

Research in the field of early childhood has found that one factor in determining classroom quality is the teacher (Bandel et al., 2014; Burchinal et al., 2002; Howes & Smith, 1995; Pianta et al., 2005). Additionally, Brownlee, Berthleson, and Segaran (2007) and Lally and Mangione (2006) suggest that infants are particularly vulnerable to poor quality of care due to their dependency on the teacher. Teachers have been

(43)

31

understudied in measures of quality (Logan & Summison, 2010; Ryan & Goffin, 2008), and in particular, teachers of infants and toddlers have been virtually ignored as

valuable contributors to quality.

As evidenced by the preceding section, caring for infants and toddlers is a physically and emotionally demanding job. Teaching is a job with a significant amount of stress and a multitude of factors can cause teachers to become dissatisfied with teaching (Elliot, 2007; Jennett, Harris, & Mesibov, 2003; Stoeber & Rennert, 2008). Nguni, Sleegers, and Denessen (2006) found that satisfied teachers showed more excitement and commitment toward teaching, indicating that satisfaction could be related to quality.Increased demands as a result of more stringent quality measures create an added layer of stress on teachers and programs who are dependent on quality ratings for funding and other supports. One contributing factor to this problem may be the organizational culture and climate of each individual center (Jorde-Bloom & Abel, 2015). Lower and Cassidy (2007) reported that the relationship between quality and work environments, including organizational climate and leadership and management practices, were correlated to global quality. Their findings support the idea that quality work environments for teachers are part of quality classroom environments for children.

High stress levels create instability in the early childhood workforce that poses a potential threat to the quality of early learning environments (Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council (NRC), 2015). Because the teacher is a key element in maintaining the level of quality through daily interactions as well as during observations of quality measures (Bandel et al., 2014; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Burchinal et al., 2002; Pianta et al., 2005), it is important to maintain stable, consistent

(44)

32

teachers who are more likely to provide attentive, appropriate, and engaged interactions throughout the day (Helburn, 1995; Howes & Hamilton,1992). Teacher child

interactions are less effective when caregivers are stressed or less committed to their work with the children (Elliot, 2007; Thomason & La Paro, 2013).

Teachers’ motivations make a difference in their behavior, expectations, and even compliance with quality standards and organizational culture (Jorde-Bloom & Abel, 2015; Kennedy, 1996). Focusing on the motivations that teachers have to

implement a high quality program, concerns arise with the source of the motivation and the symbolic compliance (Guss, personal communication, 2015) of teachers. The concerns indicate that some teachers can perform well enough to be rated highly on observational quality measures, but not maintain that level of quality on a day to day basis well enough to provide a consistently high quality of care to children.

A number of factors can influence teacher behaviors in the classroom. Feelings of self-efficacy (Guo, Justice, Sawyer, & Tompkins, 2011; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998), sources of motivation (Roth et al., 2007), personal beliefs (Kennedy, 1996), and organizational issues (Jorde-Bloom & Abel, 2015; Lower & Cassidy, 2007; Zaslow, Tout, & Martinez-Beck, 2010), all play a part in how the teacher interacts with the infants and toddlers in her care. The interactions of these teacher behaviors and structural characteristics also create situations where children are optimally supported across domains of development.

Theories of Motivation

Why are teachers in infant and toddler settings motivated to build relationships, design developmentally appropriate play opportunities, provide language and emotional

(45)

33

supports, and maintain health and safety standards for the classroom? Why do some teachers seem to do these things naturally, while others need frequent reminders and monitoring from their superiors? The answers may lie in an exploration of autonomous motivation. Although little research has been done to date using theories of motivation in investigating the early childhood workforce, this study presents it as a new direction for answers to old questions about how to increase levels of quality.

Several theories exist as to why some people are motivated to do certain things and others are not (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman,1959;

Kolcharov, 2015; Maslow, 1943; Pink, 2009). Although science has yet to explain why people want what they want, psychologists have studied this idea from numerous perspectives, including needs, behaviors, and satisfaction. The basic idea behind all theories of motivation is that something is influencing a person to behave in a certain way to reach a desired goal. Unfortunately, not all people want the same thing, so they behave in radically different ways with varying results, leaving theorists to ponder what motivates them.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

One of the most well known theories regarding motivation is Maslow’s

Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943). Easily visualized as a pyramid of needs that build upon one another (See Figure 3), Maslow describes five types of needs; psychological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization. These five types can be divided into three categories, basic needs (physiological and safety), psychological needs (love and esteem), and self-fulfillment needs (self-actualization). According to Maslow, the basic needs must first be met in order to give consideration to higher levels of need. In other

(46)

34

words, you must be physically safe and secure in order to connect with others, feel good about yourself, or achieve personal potential.

Figure 3. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow’s interest in personal potential, and how it is achieved, guided his theory and posits that people are capable of achieving self-actualization under the right conditions. In his 1943 work, Maslow describes self-actualization as the tendency to fulfill potential

It refers to the person’s desire for self-fulfillment, namely, to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is potentially. The specific form that these needs will take will of course vary greatly from person to person. In one individual it may take the form of the desire to be an ideal mother, in another it may be expressed athletically, and in still another it may be expressed in painting pictures or in

inventions. (p. 382–383)

Maslow (1943) describes the hierarchy of needs as a continuous cycle in which when one need is met, another higher need presents itself. Motivation, therefore, comes

(47)

35

from necessity. Critics of this theory suggest that it is too simplistic regarding the expectation that only one type of need can be met at a time rather than many needs on many levels simultaneously (McLeod, 2016). Equally important, other critics suggest that self-actualization is not a goal that is consistent across all people. Additionally, for many, including teachers, basic needs will always be difficult to meet due to financial restrictions; however, higher levels of needs are still achievable (Rouse, 2004; Sackett, 1998).

When applied to the classroom setting, the continual state of becoming

described by Maslow suggests that under optimal conditions, teachers will seek to build relationships, create challenging curricula, and support children in their development. Considering both the original theory surrounding the hierarchy of needs and the more recent research suggesting simultaneous development of potential across needs levels, this theory offers insight into potential sources of motivation for teaching behavior.

In 1972, Katz proposed that teachers go through stages of development in their careers and that their needs are different throughout each of the different stages. The four stages include survival, consolidation, renewal, and maturity, and parallel

Maslow’s suggested search for self-actualization. This self-actualization occurs when teachers move from just surviving the school year and integrating knowledge and practice into relatedness with other teachers and finally to a deep and introspective discourse about teaching as a practice and a profession.

Kokcharov (2013), a scientist and expert in using games as a motivational strategy, describes a hierarchy of skills development and motivation similar to

(48)

36

1) M1: Myself: I do it my way; 2) M2: Mastering: I seek to improve what I do; and 3) M3: Mission: I do it for a compelling purpose. He suggests that people at level M1 complete work tasks to meet their personal needs, i.e. money and recognition. By the time they progress to M2, people use work tasks to seek self-improvement and the sense of belonging to a team. At M3, the work becomes the mission of creating value for others. This literature, although not from the education field, suggests that teachers at various stages of development may be motivated by different needs, for example, a compelling purpose could be related to internal or external motivations, but would likely align with the person’s own values or the value of the program they worked in. Understanding the hierarchy of motivation as presented by interdisciplinary literature provides a wider lens for observing and evaluation teacher behaviors in diverse settings.

Self Determination Theory

In contrast to Maslow’s work, Self Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000) proposes that motivation is not needs driven, but is a contributing factor in the satisfaction of needs. SDT describes two sources of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic. Consistent with all research surrounding motivation, in SDT, the initiation and

regulation of behavior differs greatly from person to person based on individual needs. SDT’s basic needs theory posits that human beings have an innate need for three particular psychological factors to exist in the environment in order to facilitate personal well-being. Deci and Ryan (2000) contended that the satisfaction of the basic

psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness is required for optimal human health, personality, behavior, and well-being. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness facilitate a person’s growth and optimal functioning. Studies in SDT across